Five Views on Justification

Today the meaning and significance of the pet protestant doctrine of justification is “contested at virtually every turn.” James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy’s, Justification: Five Views presents a thoughtful introduction to the debate. The book is the most recent installment from IVP in the “Spectrum Multiview” series. As usual, the format consists of each contributor stating his case followed by a series of short responses from each of the others. The editors of the volume (Beilby and Eddy) have served in the same capacity for other Spectrum Multiview volumes, most recently on The Historical Jesus. In Justification: Five Views the contributing authors and perspectives are as follows:

• Traditional Reformed – Michael S. Horton
• Progressive Reformed – Michael F. Bird
• New Perspective – James D. G. Dunn
• Deification (Theosis) – Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen 
• Roman Catholic – Gerald O’Collins and Oliver Rafferty

I am particularly looking forward to the chapters by Dunn and Bird, NT scholars who will contribute most in the NT aspect of the debate. However, I’m also interested in the Eastern perspective of Kärkkäinen and the Roman Catholic response to this seemingly very protestant squabble.

So, what exactly is the dispute? After all, justification has been the central feature of protestant doctrine since Protestantism carved out its place in the landscape of western Christendom. Martin Luther claimed, “If we lose the doctrine of justification we lose everything” (Lectures on Galatians, cited on pg 24). Similarly, John Calvin described justification as, “the primary article of the Christian religion” (Institutes 3.2.1; cited on pg 26). Justification is at the heart of protestant theology, yet recent developments in NT studies have fractured fault-lines of debate in the once firm foundational doctrine.

Beilby and Eddy provide a comprehensive yet surprisingly succinct introduction to the debate in two chapters. The first chapter spans from Origen to contemporary feminists and places the recent discussion in the context of historical theology. The highlights include sections on Augustine (19-21), Luther (24-26), Tillich and Bultmann (34-37). The introductory material is fairly derivative, but it seemed to me that these sections were the most familiar territory to the editors. The difficulty of this broad introduction is the numerous sub-debates of historical theology. For example, Augustine’s view of justification is as much contested as Paul’s. Thus, it is difficult to provide a sufficient introduction without getting lost in the intricacies of sub-debates. Beilby and Eddy have managed a fine attempt, if occasionally erring on the side of generality rather than intricacy.

The second chapter frames debate in terms of the “New Perspective.” For the uninitiated, the New Perspective (NP) is really not all that “new.” Spearheaded by E. P. Sanders’ Paul and Palestinian Judaism (in 1977), the fundamental axiom of the NP is that the reformers were wrong about Second Temple Judaism. NP folks argue that the portrait of Judaism as a “works-based” religion whereby Jews earned salvation through meritorious acts of righteousness is fundamentally flawed and not the object of attack in Romans and Galatians. The most representative figures of this diverse group are E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn and N. T. Wright. Agree with it or not, the NP debate has set the theological agenda for Pauline studies in the last forty years. It’s ramifications for justification are significant because it requires rethinking what Paul means when he talks about being justified by faith apart from works (esp. Rom 3.21-26; Gal 2.15-21). The exegetical issues of the discussion revolve around Paul’s relationship to Judaism, the role of works in final judgment, the OT background of justification and the meaning of the phrase “faith of Jesus.” Both introductory chapters are necessary to appreciate the significance of the debate and what is truly at stake.

The introductory material alone is worth making the book assigned reading for an undergraduate course in Pauline theology. For only $ 15.35 at Amazon, and even less in the Kindle version $ 9.99, it is a steal. All in all, it is a solid introduction to a NT debate and the significant theological implications that result. Students will be well served by such an introduction.

How Jewish is your Paul?

At initial glance many readers might find the title of Pamela Eisenbaum's recent book, Paul was not a Christian to be offensive. "What do you mean, Paul was not a Christian?! Paul is not only a Christian but he is the premier Christian." Eisenbaum's intention is not to rob believers of their beloved Apostle, but to understand him in a more historically accurate way.

Typically, Paul's story is told something like this:

Paul was originally a zealous Jew who was persecuting the church, until something utterly miraculous happened: the resurrected Jesus appeared to him. This revelation led to Paul's conversion from Judaism to Christianity, from being a zealous Pharisee to being an unstoppable preacher of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Once converted, he realized the futility of Judaism, with its endless demands of the law, and rejected it. [pg 2]

In contrast, Eisenbaum argues, "Paul lived and died a Jew" [5].

After setting the terms of her discussion [chap. 2], Eisenbaum explains how Paul has come to be read through the lens of conversion from Judaism to Christianity. The chief contributors to the misreading were Augustine and Luther who mistakenly read their own religious experiences into Paul's letters [chap. 3]. Then, she provides a brief history of Paul's relationship to Judaism in recent research that culminates with New Perspective (NP) interpreters [chap. 4]. Though she appreciates what the NP has done for reading Paul as a Jew, Eisenbaum wants to take the NP further into a "radical new perspective" [66]. Her problem with the NP is that she sees it reinforcing too sharp a distinction between Paul prior to his Damascus encounter and afterward.

In order to substantiate her radical new perspective, Eisenbaum spends a few chapters clarifying what Second Temple Jews believed and how porous their social boundaries could be. She begins by describing the common features of the various strands of Second Temple Judaism [chap 5]. She focuses on monotheism, election and Torah as key defining features. She also argues against reading personal redemption as a major feature of Second Temple Judaism. Whereas "Christians assume that personal salvation is the fundamental question of religion—all religion. . . . there is no notion of eternal life . . . in the Hebrew Bible" [89]. Jews were not concerned with life after death because they assumed that the creator God would bring them redemption in history. As a result, they were more concerned with defining Israel–God's chosen people—than salvation.

To follow her chapter on defining Judaism Eisenbaum addresses one of the chief concerns for Second Temple Jews, that is identifying who is in the people of God [chap. 6]. A corollary of this question is what will happen to those outside God's people – Gentiles. She argues that there was a wide variety of answers to these questions ranging from sectarian Jews who were militantly hostile to Gentiles (represented Jubilees and 4QMMT) to Jews who were highly integrated into Greek culture while still maintaining a keen sense of Jewish identity (represented most obviously in Philo). Moving from the general picture of Judaism, Eisenbaum narrows in on the Pharisees [chap 7]. She argues that the Pharisees sought to extended temple purity to everyone, but in more lenient ways than other groups. So, for the Pharisees "The table of every Jew in his home was seen as being like the table of the Lord in the Jerusalem Temple" [130], but their interpretation of purity laws tended to be more lenient than the priests who actually served in the temple. Here, Eisenbaum appeals mostly to the Mishnah and Josephus and then suggests that perhaps Paul's "more flexible view of Torah . . . derive[s] from his training as a Pharisee" [131].

If Paul is a Jew, what about those texts (esp. Gal 1.11-17; Phil 3.2-9) that emphasize the radical discontinuity between his life prior to and after Damascus? It is precisely this question that Eisenbaum addresses in chapter 8. Her answer is that these passages have been misread. The texts are contextually significant to Paul's argument regarding the divine source of his gospel (Gal 1.11-17) and his response to a less educated opposition in Philippi (Phil 3.2-9). So, "the apostle's mystical encounter with the risen Jesus cannot be used as the key to understanding Paul" [142]. In chapters 9-11 Eisenbaum offers her interpretation of Paul as a Jew. She focuses on Paul's Jewish presuppositions which are observable everywhere in his letters [chap 9]. She looks at Paul's monotheism as the key to his conceptual framework [chap 10]. Then, she looks at his specific calling and mission to go to Gentiles as a crucial part of understanding him [chap 11]. These chapters are well worth reading to see the continuity of Paul's thought with Second Temple Judaism.

Finally, in chapters 12-13 Eisenbaum turns to the crucial question of Paul's view of the law. How can she read the passages where Paul makes critical comments about the Torah (esp. Rom 7.5-6, 8-10; Gal 3.23-25; 5.2) in her radically new perspective? To respond to this question she makes five arguments:

1. Paul's audience is composed of Gentiles, "so everything he says about the law applies to Gentiles [only], unless specified otherwise" [216].
   
2. "Torah is for Jews but provides a standard for all" [219].
   
3. "The law is not meant to condemn humanity; it serves a positive pedagogical function" [224].
   
4. There is no inherent opposition between grace and doing good works [233].
   
5. "Jesus saves, but he only saves Gentiles." [242]
   

So, Paul's disparaging remarks about the Law are not really disparaging the law per se, but rather refute imposing Torah on Gentiles. To impose Torah on Gentiles would be to deny the significance of Jesus' faithful activity on cross. But, Torah is still in effect for Jews.

The last chapter of the book responds to the critique that she is presenting a "two ways salvation" [251]. She argues that her view is only a "two ways salvation" from the traditional perspective. Her radically new perspective argues that Paul had no concern for personal salvation, but rather for the imminent redemption of the world. According to Eisenbaum, "Paul's question is, Now that the end of time is at hand, how will God reconcile all people, Jews and Gentiles, collectively?" She sees Paul addressing this question most directly in Romans 9-11, but she offers only a cursory interpretation of the passage [254-55].

I am convinced that Paul remained a Jew throughout his life. So, I agree with the basic thesis of Eisenbaum's book. Still, I consider many of her other specific conclusions about Paul to be incorrect. To put it simply, I radically disagree with the radical new perspective. Consider for example, her treatment of the Pharisees. Eisenbaum only presents the examples of more lenient Pharisees from late evidence and does not interact with the image of Pharisees as strict observers of Torah prevalent in the NT (privileging late sources over earlier ones). She also fails to account for the significant discontinuity in Paul's life after Damascus. Paul certainly saw himself receiving a new calling in the tradition of the Hebrew prophets, but the significance of Jesus in his thought is unprecedented (failure to explain the development of the church). She aligns with Hurtado in regard to Christology, but fails to explain how this might relate to Jews. Does Paul only care that Jews eventually recognize Jesus' significance for Gentiles or does he think that Jesus is the means of communal redemption for both Jews and Gentiles? I think Paul thought Jesus was more significant for Jews than Eisenbaum suggests. Lastly, it seems inconceivable to me that Paul only addressed Gentiles. In fact, the letters where he addresses issues regarding the law (Galatians and Romans) were probably filled with Jewish believers. How else does one explain Paul's extensive use of Jewish scripture to validate his arguments? Though I appreciated her new perspective I think it is too radical.

Covenental Nomism in 1 Clement

I was recently given the task to lecture on the "New Perspective" for an undergraduate class on the Pauline Epistles. The class was made up of Bible College students who were, for the most part, completely unfamiliar with the debate. Thankfully, they were already initiated through an assigned reading of James Dunn and Alan Suggate's short but helpful book, The Justice of God: A Fresh Look at the Old Doctrine of Justification by Faith. The basic thesis of the book is that justification, when read from the perspective of Paul and Second Temple Judaism rather than Luther, has profound social dimensions and cannot be limited to individuals' salvation from hell. Most students enjoyed Dunn and Suggate even if there were not totally convinced.

I spent a lot of time introducing students to Sanders' articulation of "Covenantal Nomism" which he defines as:

The view that one's place in God's plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression [. . .] Obedience maintains one's position in the covenant, but it does not earn God's grace as such [. . .]. Righteousness in Judaism is the term which implies the maintenance of status among the group of the elect. (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 75, 420, 544) – Dunn pieces together this definition in Jesus, Paul and the Law 186.

None of this is new or surprising to anyone reading in Pauline scholarship for the last forty years. Sanders' argument, though not without its detractors, has basically won the majority of scholars. It is now widely accepted that first century Jews, for the most part, did not consider their salvation to be dependent on "earning," but were firmly convinced that their salvation was a result of God's gracious election in the covenant. However, their obedience, or rather disobedience, could place them outside of that covenant.

I suggest that 1 Clement displays precisely the same thought pattern. In the midst of his argument for unity and reestablishment of the displaced Corinthian leadership, Clement makes an argument for election leading to obedience/good works and disobedience leading to a judgment that places the elect Corinthians outside of God's covenantal grace.

Clement encourages the Corinthians to worship boldly since God the Father has "made us his chosen portion [ἐκλογῆς μέρος]" (1 Clem 29.1). "Portion" is the word used in the LXX to describe the land Israel was promised to inherit (Num 18.20; Deut 12.12; 14.27). "Chosen" is an obvious word for election and is likewise used in the LXX to refer to the specific choosing of a group within the already chosen people of Israel (Num 16.5, 7; 17.20; cf. 1 Sam 17.8). Clement then cites a series of passages from Deuteronomy proclaiming God's election of Israel (1 Clem. 29.2-3; Deut 32.8-9; 4.34; 14.2; Num 18.27). Drawing from OT theology of election, then, Clement describes the elect status of the Corinthian churches.

Having firmly established his election theology based on God's grace – a grace he will clearly describe coming through Jesus (1 Clem 32.4) – Clement argues for obedience. "Since then we are a holy portion, we should do everything that pertains to holiness" (30.1). Clement exhorts the Corinthians to cling to their election by their obedience. Not surprisingly, Clement draws from the example of Abraham and Isaac (31.2‒3). God's gracious election leads to obedience, but this obedience does not earn grace. Rather, obedience is the proper response to God's previous elective action.

In a rhetorical aside, similar to Romans 6.1, Clement wonders if God's work in believers prompts laziness. "Shall we grow idle and not do what is good? Shall we abandon our acts of love?" (33.1). The obvious answer, like Paul's μὴ γένοιτο, is "of course not." Instead, God's work in believers ought to stimulate them to "hasten with fervor and zeal to complete every good work" (33.1). According to Clement, believers ought to reflect the image of God (33.4‒7), which means his good creative action, and so "with all our strength we should engage in righteous work" (33.8). Clement is then explicit that believers will be judged according to their "works" (34.3; cf. Rev 22.12). Since eschatological glory is beyond comparison (34.8 citing 1 Cor 2.9; 1 Clem. 35.1‒3) believers ought to "strive to be counted among those who wait" for that promised glory (35.4). How do believers wait? Clement is explicit that believers must "seek after what is pleasing and acceptable" to God and by "casting off from ourselves all injustice and lawlessness, greed, strife, malice and deceit, gossip and slander, hatred of God, haughtiness and arrogance, vanity and inhospitality" (35.5). The Corinthians to whom Clement writes are in the gracious covenant through Jesus. Their failure to adhere to the covenant obligations, however, will result in their judgment.

Clement, not unlike Paul and Second Temple Judaism as a whole, is clear that human effort is part of salvation. This does not equate to "earning" salvation, but it is articulated as placement in the covenant people of God. Clement, then, fits in the pattern of Second Temple Jewish "covenantal nomism."